Steve Ellner's Blog on Venezuela, Latin America and Beyond

The centralization of ownership of the private media in the United States and elsewhere has become increasingly pronounced, at the same time that its reporting has become increasingly one-sided and monolithic. My blog seeks to expose this lack of objectivity and present alternative ideas that point in the direction of much-needed fundamental change.

Monday, December 26, 2016

THE ASCENDANCE OF TRUMP AND THE LIMITS OF GLOBALIZATION

Some thoughts of mine on the broader implications of the
Trump phenomenon

Many analysts have belittled the seriousness of Trump's anti-globalization
rhetoric and even such jingoistic proposals as the construction of a wall along
the Mexican border. They point to Trump’s appointments of such global players as Rex
Tillerson and Steven Mnuchin as evidence that Trump cannot and will not turn
his back on global commitments and realities.

Along these lines, Bill Robinson (whose work I have always admired and used
extensively in the classroom) argues that Trump represents the rise of
neo-fascism, but in no way threatens to put a halt to, or a break on,
globalization. As proof, he points to the global dimensions of Trump’s own
capitalist holdings.

In contrast to Robinson, I argue that
globalization is still basically a tendency rather than an all-encompassing
reality and that the nation state is a fundamental element, which has to be at
the center of any analysis of the world’s political economy. The Trump
phenomenon demonstrates that the ruling class of the world's most powerful
nation is very much divided as to the pluses and minuses of globalization, in
two ways. First, the hardened opposition to Trump’s candidacy by much of the
U.S. elite indicates the degree to which the nation’s ruling class is fractured.
Second, the willingness of former adversaries within the establishment to make
their peace with Trump puts in evidence the ruling class’s ambivalence regarding
globalization. Had Bernie Sanders been elected president, the ruling class in
its totality would have carried out an all-out campaign against him both before
and after his election. The fact that Republicans and business leaders who
doggedly opposed Trump’s candidacy have toned down their rhetoric, and are
seeking an understanding with the new president, is a reflection of the ambivalence
of the nation’s elite regarding globalization. Furthermore, even before Trump’s
nomination as Republican Party candidate, he counted on the unwavering support
of such important political actors as Fox News and Newt Gingrich, who undoubtedly
represent the interests of sectors of the nation’s bourgeoisie.

Trump's anti-globalization
discourse cannot be discarded as mere bluster. To completely turn his back on
his main campaign offer of reversing free trade policies would be political
suicide. By doing so, Trump would forfeit his largest social base of support –
that is, the white working class – and leave himself vulnerable to the
revengeful actions of powerful political actors who he had insulted during the
campaign, who would then give encouragement to and abet popular and progressive
sectors opposed to his reactionary positions. There is a consistency to Trump's
positions. His racist statements particularly against Mexicans are designed to
underpin and provide credibility to his promises to put a halt to the exodus of
jobs and to renegotiate NAFTA. Furthermore, it is not a coincidence that two
major targets of Trump's attacks are Mexico and China, while he has at least
until now had kind words for Russia's Vladimir Putin. Mexico and China, unlike
Russia, have been major recipients of U.S. investments in the area of production
for the U.S. market.

Trump’s aim is not to return to pre-globalization times or to insulate the U.S.
economy from global pressures. If that were the case he would not have chosen
Tillerson and Mnuchin for such top cabinet posts. However, for reasons I state
above, he will probably go beyond mere symbolic gestures to counter aspects of
globalization; such actions will have an important impact on the economy, given
the volatility of financial markets.

What the Trump phenomenon tells us is that globalization
writers of all stripes underestimate the degree to which the U. S.
bourgeoisie is concerned about the deteriorated state of affairs in the nation.
Humanitarian considerations are obviously not in the forefront of its concerns.
Regardless of the degree to which their business interests are tied to the
global economy and the intricacy of those ties, U.S. businesspeople are
affected in major ways by decisions taken at the level of the nation state. And
the U.S. bourgeoisie has infinitely greater clout in Washington than in any
European nation, and even more so in the case of China. The importance of this
political factor is the most convincing explanation as to why the U.S.
bourgeoisie is receptive, to the extent that it is, to Trump's proposals to
"make America great again."

Tuesday, December 20, 2016

Felipe Carrillo Puerto and the socialist legacy in Mexico

The presence of Felipe Carrillo Puerto, the
socialist governor of Yucatan who was executed in 1924, is everywhere in
Merida, Mexico. There is a park, statue and district (“colonia”) with his name,
as well as the Teatro Felipe Carrillo Puerto that is part of the Universidad
Autónoma de Yucatán that he founded as governor of the state. Carrillo Puerto was
allied with Zapata (and later Obregón and Calles) and attempted to apply the
agrarian reform to Yucatan. He also promoted worker unionization, the diffusion
of the Mayan language and defended women’s rights. He was executed in a
right-wing revolt that spread to the rest of Mexico in an attempt to overthrow
the government of Obregón and Calles. The veneration of the socialist Carrillo
Puerto in Mérida serves to refute the half truths and stereotypes promoted by
those who vilify the socialist tradition and legacy.

Wednesday, December 14, 2016

The Pluses and Minuses of Jobs

The movie Jobs about the life of Steve Jobs is worth
seeing. I liked it in one sense but felt it fell short in another. I liked it
because it relates Jobs’ personal life to the type of company he made out of
Apple. His relationship with his ex-wife (or ex-partner) and especially his
daughter was really sick. He was a control freak who hurt the only person he
loved (his daughter) in order to control her. And that’s exactly what his
business strategy was. Google uses open source, and Microsoft doesn’t force
Windows users to buy exclusively Microsoft programs. But Apple is different. It’s
as if tires on GM cars have to be GM-produced, and their cars could only run on
GM-gasoline. In short, the movie shows how Jobs was a control freak in both his
personal life and his business life.

The downside of the movie is that it dwells too much
on the personal drama, and there is little about what was really going on in
the company with regard to the development of cutting-edge technology. And the
movie ends with ipods: nothing about tablets, iphones, mobile technology, and
the like. Throughout the move, scenes hark back to a decision that was made
back in the mid-80s with regard to Apple 2 and Macintosh.

About Me

Steve Ellner has taught economic history at the Universidad de Oriente in Puerto La Cruz, Venezuela since 1977. He is the author of numerous books and journal and magazine articles on Venezuela history and politics. He frequently lectures on Venezuela and Latin American political developments in the U.S. and elsewhere. He received his Ph.D. in Latin American history at the University of New Mexico in 1980.